This is a purposeful misrepresentation of those situations and you know it. The "don't sell a cake to faggots" business was in fact being forced to produce a certain type of art. The bakery was more than willing to sell a cake to the faggots, the problem was that the faggots wanted a specific faggot cake. The lawsuit was about whether or not a business can be forced to produce certain kinds of art. The answer is apparently that they can be forced to do so.

No, that case was very much centered around the free exercise of religion. You personally might have looked at it from the perspective of being forced to produce certain kinds of art, but it's not what the bakery argued or the courts ruled on. And the Supreme Court did eventually side with the bakery:

I suggest you read the opinions of the actual Justices who made the decision, rather than just reading the overview, as you are so fond of doing.

For example: "Phillips’ creation of custom wedding cakes is exactly the kind of “expressive” conduct protected by the First Amendment." The Supreme Court ruled on it from the perspective of being forced to create certain types of art. Read the opinions written by the Justices and stop being a shitty e-lawyer.

Warren has undoubtedly been dopey on this issue, and she should absolutely have never taken Trump's bait last year and tried to "prove" her ancestry, but there is literally zero evidence of her supposed heritage playing any role in her career or hiring prospects. Like the idea that John Kerry was a fraud who never earned his military decorations, this is a lie that has cemented its way into the public consciousness, and it's the main reason why Warren shouldn't be running. She will never, never shake this.

I suggest you read the opinions of the actual Justices who made the decision, rather than just reading the overview, as you are so fond of doing.

For example: "Phillips’ creation of custom wedding cakes is exactly the kind of “expressive” conduct protected by the First Amendment." The Supreme Court ruled on it from the perspective of being forced to create certain types of art. Read the opinions written by the Justices and stop being a shitty e-lawyer.

That quote is more of a paraphrase, and it came from Thomas's concurrence. Evidently he agreed with the idea that this was more about artistic expression than free exercise of religion. I'll grant that I could have looked into the case more closely to see where your argument came from, but to say that it was decided on those lines is enormously misleading at best. Not that it really matters, as the Court kept the ruling so narrowly confined to how the commission treated the bakery that the overall issues remain legally unsettled.

I suggest the snowflakes section themselves off from the rest of society, form their own thing, build their own shit on their own terms, and see how long it lasts...

There's some anger there sir. It would work well with a tiki torch and a MAGA hat.

I didn't actually mention the AG but since you bring it up, yes, he's a corrupt lying sack like everyone else in the administration. He knew exactly what he was doing when he buried Mueller's summaries and substituted his own. Even Trump fell for his lies. Did you notice in the days after the report was released that Trump was crowing "Total Exoneration!" and he was going on about what a great job Mueller had done on the 'exhaustive and thorough report." But a few days later when people actually read the report and found out that's not what it said then Trump went back to "witch hunt," "total hoax" and Mueller is out to get him.

Warren has undoubtedly been dopey on this issue, and she should absolutely have never taken Trump's bait last year and tried to "prove" her ancestry, but there is literally zero evidence of her supposed heritage playing any role in her career or hiring prospects. Like the idea that John Kerry was a fraud who never earned his military decorations, this is a lie that has cemented its way into the public consciousness, and it's the main reason why Warren shouldn't be running. She will never, never shake this.

No, it hasn't been debunked.

Her name was on the list of Harvard and it identified her as Native American.

I suggest the snowflakes section themselves off from the rest of society, form their own thing, build their own shit on their own terms, and see how long it lasts...

There's some anger there sir. It would work well with a tiki torch and a MAGA hat.

I didn't actually mention the AG but since you bring it up, yes, he's a corrupt lying sack like everyone else in the administration. He knew exactly what he was doing when he buried Mueller's summaries and substituted his own. Even Trump fell for his lies. Did you notice in the days after the report was released that Trump was crowing "Total Exoneration!" and he was going on about what a great job Mueller had done on the 'exhaustive and thorough report." But a few days later when people actually read the report and found out that's not what it said then Trump went back to "witch hunt," "total hoax" and Mueller is out to get him.

Her name was on the list of Harvard and it identified her as Native American.

Which she isn't...

Jesus...

I assumed that when you said "gain entry into a list of law professors for Harvard" you meant get hired by Harvard. But yes, it is true that Harvard put her on a list of minority-status professors. Doesn't seem like much of a motive to pretend to be Native American, but it is true, for whatever that's worth.

No charges of obstruction is not the same as no obstruction or attempts at obstruction.

Obviously it is.

If obstruction actually took place, he would have been charged, post haste.

No he wouldn't. He officially wouldn't. The report, which I'm guessing no one has read, clearly states that his investigation is adhering to the justice department guidelines that they can't indict a sitting president.

No charges of obstruction is not the same as no obstruction or attempts at obstruction.

Obviously it is.

If obstruction actually took place, he would have been charged, post haste.

No he wouldn't. He officially wouldn't. The report, which I'm guessing no one has read, clearly states that his investigation is adhering to the justice department guidelines that they can't indict a sitting president.

And if the report "clearly states," a sitting president "can't," be indicted you would provide the exact page number where that is written.

For obstruction to take place, something legitimate needs to be going on that can be obstructed.

This whole fucking thing is a goddamn sham.

Somebody pony up a single verified claim that Trump won the goddamn election due to some fucking Russian trolls on the internet.

No charges of obstruction is not the same as no obstruction or attempts at obstruction.

Obviously it is.

If obstruction actually took place, he would have been charged, post haste.

No he wouldn't. He officially wouldn't. The report, which I'm guessing no one has read, clearly states that his investigation is adhering to the justice department guidelines that they can't indict a sitting president.

And if the report "clearly states," a sitting president "can't," be indicted you would provide the exact page number where that is written.

Volume 2, page 1.

Quote

The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of the constitutional separation of powers.”

[/Quote]

For obstruction to take place, something legitimate needs to be going on that can be obstructed.[/Quote]This is the logic the AG made. But that's dangerous to say. Because it means that... Lets say me and a friend are at a protest against Trump and we're loud and screaming mean things. Trump then calls the cops and the cops start arresting people, including my friend. I jump in the way and together, we escape.No crime was committed, according to the AG, as being loud at a protest isn't a crime. Thus, I couldn't obstruct justice.

Here's another. Bill Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice BUT no crime was committed. Thus, he should never have been impeached, right? No crime, no obstruction of justice.

Somebody pony up a single verified claim that Trump won the goddamn election due to some fucking Russian trolls on the internet.

Page 1 of the report ...

"The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping andsystematic fashion."

If you don't believe the sweeping and systemic interference from the Russians had any effect on the outcome of the election, it's ok. The Russians learned a lot in 2016 and with the help of the Republicans will do much better this time. Perhaps the North Koreans will want to get involved also. Since it makes no difference, let Chinese get in on it too.

Its true that no one can say that Russian interference won the election for Trump. What it likely did was exacerbate the polarization of the American public and this almost certainly contributed a non-zero amount of votes to Trump.